I find David's effort to dress up as Kim Jong Un impressive. It's not an attempt at a joke, as he was going to a fancy dress party. Nevertheless, he has been accused of crossing the line and being racist.

I don't think he's being racist, but I love comedy and I like David Walliams (on balance). I'm a 50 year-old white bloke from a traditionally racist country. My people believe that we use the subset of racism called "British Racism" as our base set of racist beliefs.

Do you think David is being racist? Please explain your answer.

I'd also like, perhaps now or a little later, to talk about the comedy of Harry Enfield, a gifted mimic. Harry has the power to make me weep with laughter. Some of his stuff (it's what, late 90's? I discovered him via you-tube) is very very very dodgy on the grounds of race. I'd like to, separately, post links to a bunch of different sketches where he plays Nelson Mandela, a white South African, a German guy, an elderly American couple, a northerner as a pet of a rich englishman from the south, there are quite a range.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:

If there is interest, I can find you the link to a photograph of myself with a friend. He is dressed as Kim Jong Un, complete with a little cardboard nuclear missile; I am his starlet wife gazing adoringly up into (actually over at, since he is shorter than I) his authoritarian countenance. We were at the World Science Fiction Convention in London, promoting the Pyongyang in 2039 Worldcon bid. Needless to say this bid was entirely fictional.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:

quote:Originally posted by simontoad: Harry has the power to make me weep with laughter. Some of his stuff (it's what, late 90's?

The sketches you're talking about are from 2008-2012, and it wouldn't be an enormous surprise if another series appeared.

1980s-90s for his peak stuff, but Mandela, the elderly Americans etc are much more recent.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:

I think Harry Enfield (and Paul Whitehouse) get away with it because like a lot of comedians they seek to subvert expectations, but never do so in a way that sets out to offend.

The same series was I think one of the first (if not the first) to not only depict the waves of Eastern European immigration to the UK post EU enlargement, but to do so almost entirely positively.

On that note, I'd like to think that Nelson Mandela had as much fun in his twilight years as Harry and Paul show him having. Although maybe not to the extent of stealing Fidel Castro's iPhone then pushing his wheelchair off Beachy Head....
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:

In general, I don't see a problem with someone dressing up as someone from another race - so long as that doesn't involve a caricaturing of racial characteristics in some way.

FWIW I thought a lot of Little Britain was a caricature too far (though obviously that's a slightly different issue)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:

quote:Originally posted by chris stiles: In general, I don't see a problem with someone dressing up as someone from another race - so long as that doesn't involve a caricaturing of racial characteristics in some way.

All comedians dressing up as $famous_person are caricaturing that person - that's how the comedy works. The line between caricaturing an individual's features and a racial stereotype is a little fuzzy.

A black comedian playing Obama with large prosthetic ears is clearly not racist. A white comedian playing Obama with large prosthetic ears and blackface? Well, blackface in particular has a long and racist history. (cf. Fred Armisen on SNL attracting some complaints.)

On the other hand, a white comedian playing Obama with big ears and no attempt to make his face / hair resemble Obama? Maybe he looks more like a bad impression of Prince Charles.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:

It isn't racist to dress up as a political leader, nor was it racist when many groups of people did their versions of Gangam Style, a Korean song/video.

It may be racially insensitive to do it more generally, viz "Native American" hobbyism in Germany. Some of which might be human rights complaint material in Canada.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:

Interrestingly, Matt Lucas commented recently that, "Little Britain is about 15 to 16 years old now … I think you would do things differently now. There was a character who was a rubbish transvestite who said 'I'm a lady'. She was fun at the time but I think we look differently at the transgender community now and it would be very hard to do that.”

Lucas also commented, “We made a more cruel kind of comedy than I'd do now … Society has moved on a lot since then and my own views have evolved. Now I think it's lazy for white people to get a laugh just by playing black characters."

Lucas is right IMO. It’s not that it isn’t still funny, it’s just that it’s maybe not as funny now as attitudes have changed and bits of it seem dated and a bit off.

Would I feel comfortable about a friend turning at my house for a fancy dress party dressed like that?. Yes I would. It’s tasteless and borderline racist. Why should Walliams get a free pass because he’s famous?! If he’d just done the suit, the wig whilst holding a nuke it would have been fine whilst still recognisable. The yellow face and the eye work push it over the edge.

Isn't the real question is whether we regard Kim Jong Un as so objectionable that any satire of him is such fair game that it trumps other issues of taste, not causing offence etc. Personally I wouldn't go so far as to regard that as an absolute, but he is so bad that I'd allow a lot more rope to mocking him than I'd give to 'just comedy'.

So, even if you think the satire doesn't work, I'd suggest giving David Walliams the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Enoch: Isn't the real question is whether we regard Kim Jong Un as so objectionable that any satire of him is such fair game that it trumps other issues of taste, not causing offence etc.

No, it isn't. Because, as noted earlier, one could satirise him without any reference to his ethnicity.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Enoch: Isn't the real question is whether we regard Kim Jong Un as so objectionable that any satire of him is such fair game that it trumps other issues of taste, not causing offence etc.

No, I don't think so. Because if your costume crosses the line into a racist caricature, you're not poking fun at Kim any more, you're caricaturing Koreans.

And, as mentioned before, there's so much history tied up in blackface that one ought to walk very carefully in that direction.

To go back to my Obama example, if my black neighbor wanted to dress as the 44th president, he could use as much makeup and prosthetics as he wanted to make himself look exactly like Obama, and imitate Obama's accent, and we'd all be impressed at the effort he went to, and the accuracy of his costume. Nobody would think he was being racist.

If I, a random white Brit, wanted to dress as Obama, although I can argue that I should be able to do exactly the same things, it is to my mind too easily misunderstood. Because it's not going to be obvious to anyone whether I'm caricaturing President Obama, or caricaturing generic black features. It I was a really really good makeup artist, and made myself look exactly like Obama, perhaps I could get away with it. In the real world, almost certainly not.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:No, I don't think so. Because if your costume crosses the line into a racist caricature, you're not poking fun at Kim any more, you're caricaturing Koreans. ...

Yebbut, the question was whether it has done. And if David Walliams was caricaturing Kim Jong Un, and we are agreed that the latter is someone who thoroughly merits caricaturing, I remain prepared to give him sufficient slack as to whether there is some other person or group who might leap out of the woodwork and say they resent being caricatured.

And in this situation, I don't count the unhappy citizens of North Korea as an interest group. We've no idea what their view would be. They can't express it and it is impossible objectively to find out.

quote:Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:No, I don't think so. Because if your costume crosses the line into a racist caricature, you're not poking fun at Kim any more, you're caricaturing Koreans. ...

Yebbut, the question was whether it has done.

Of course, it has done. As explained, yellowface isn't necessary to caricature Kim. The outfit and haircut would suffice.

quote: And if David Walliams was caricaturing Kim Jong Un, and we are agreed that the latter is someone who thoroughly merits caricaturing, I remain prepared to give him sufficient slack as to whether there is some other person or group who might leap out of the woodwork and say they resent being caricatured.

Because it does not target you.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Enoch:And in this situation, I don't count the unhappy citizens of North Korea as an interest group.

Ah. It's not "citizens of North Korea" who are the victims of a racist caricature of Kim - it's ethnic Koreans, and by association other ethnic East Asians, who all tend to get lumped into the same basket.

There are plenty of ethnic Koreans in the US and UK - their opinion on Mr. Walliams in yellowface is certainly relevant.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:

In the process of my biennial shave yesterday, I tried out a little Charlie Chaplin mo. It kind of worked, but I stuffed up on the detail and it was lopsided, so I had to shave it off. I was going to wear it for one day to make my clients laugh.

I would LOVE to have either a Kim hairstyle or a Trump hairstyle. Unfortunately my male pattern baldness prevents the former, and my commitment to a hair routine in the mornings the latter.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:

quote:Originally posted by simontoad: ... I would LOVE to have either a Kim hairstyle or a Trump hairstyle. Unfortunately my male pattern baldness prevents the former, and my commitment to a hair routine in the mornings the latter.

I can't imagine that it would be difficult to find wigs to achieve both.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:Originally posted by Enoch: Isn't the real question is whether we regard Kim Jong Un as so objectionable that any satire of him is such fair game that it trumps other issues of taste, not causing offence etc.

No, it isn't. Because, as noted earlier, one could satirise him without any reference to his ethnicity.

It is certainly possible to caricature Kim Jong Un without representing his ethnicity, but the Walliams get-up doesn't look like a caricature to me at all. A caricature would pick out and exaggerate identifiable aspects Kim Jong Un's appearance to make them look ridiculous. The haircut would be the obvious thing to focus on, and from the photos I've seen, Walliams hasn't tried to exaggerate or ridicule that or any other feature. It looks to me like simple dressing up, which is not the same as a caricature.

I'd agree that caricaturing someone's race is problematic, even is they are as a person someone who thoroughly deserves a piss-taking, because that would give the appearance of suggesting (even if it were not the intent) that being of that particular race makes someone ridiculous.

However if you are not caricaturing, but simply trying to make yourself look like someone else, I don't see that you're under any obligation to ignore their race. You wouldn't be trying to poke fun at their race.

The attack element of the representation seems to me to be not that it portrays Kim Jong Un's race, but that that it portrays him as a fit subject specifically for a Halloween costume - ie. one that's meant to be scary. The message (to any fair-minded observer) is "Kim Jong Un, portrayed with reasonable accuracy*, is someone who terrifies me". Which is not a racist message. No fair-mined observer would look at Walliams' costume and conclude that his intended message was "Hey, Korean people look funny".

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:... The attack element of the representation seems to me to be not that it portrays Kim Jong Un's race, but that that it portrays him as a fit subject specifically for a Halloween costume - ie. one that's meant to be scary. The message (to any fair-minded observer) is "Kim Jong Un, portrayed with reasonable accuracy*, is someone who terrifies me". ...

Thank you Eliab. You've expressed the core of what I was trying to say much, much better than I did, especially in the bit I've selected above.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab: The message (to any fair-minded observer) is "Kim Jong Un, portrayed with reasonable accuracy*, is someone who terrifies me". Which is not a racist message. No fair-mined observer would look at Walliams' costume and conclude that his intended message was "Hey, Korean people look funny".

Bullshit.

Given Walliams history of less than sensitive portrayals, it is entirely reasonable to question his intentions.

Yellowface has been used to insult and replace Asians with attempts at accurate makeup.

Intention is secondary to reasonably expected reaction.

Once again, the makeup was necessary, so why the fuck do it?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha: Yellowface has been used to insult and replace Asians with attempts at accurate makeup.

There are two different things here which I think bears some expansion.

There's yellowface used to replace Asians - this is your typical casting of white actors in makeup as Asian characters in films, which contributes to a discriminatory failure to hire Asian actors.

There's yellowface used to mock Asian people, which is something different, and is closely related to white kids pulling their eyes with their fingers to look "slitty-eyed".

If we're talking about a Hallowe'en portrayal of Kim Jong Un, the first doesn't apply: I can't hire an Asian actor to wear my Hallowe'en costume: that doesn't make sense.

I don't really buy your repeated "makeup isn't necessary" assertion. Repeated assertions do not make an argument. People do costumes in different ways. For some, the idea is to lampoon a particular person, and all that matters is that other people know who you are supposed to be. And in that case I agree that makeup serves little purpose. Other people aim for accuracy in costumes. If these people were going as some tinpot dictator, they would study photos of the person and ensure that they were wearing a uniform with all the correct braid and medals. They're getting a wig with the hair length just right. They're wearing false teeth, cheek pads, and false noses. If you're that kind of person, getting the skin tone right would be very much part of costuming yourself as a particular person. Thus I refute your "it doesn't matter" assertion.

The question is whether you can do this kind of costume as a person of another race without giving the appearance of racism (we'll stipulate that you don't intend to be racist). And I tend to think that the answer is "no" - somebody will always take it the wrong way, and so you are best off choosing a different costume.

I don't think this should be true, but until we have largely eradicated racism from our societies, it will continue to be true.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab: The message (to any fair-minded observer) is "Kim Jong Un, portrayed with reasonable accuracy*, is someone who terrifies me". Which is not a racist message. No fair-mined observer would look at Walliams' costume and conclude that his intended message was "Hey, Korean people look funny".

Bullshit.

What part of that are you saying is bullshit? That a Halloween costume is (usually, in England) represents something meant to be scary? Or that David Walliams' costume looks to a fair-minded observer like a caricature of Korean people generally?

There's absolutely nothing in the photos I've seen about the costume which has been made to look exaggerated or absurd, and that would be the essence of caricature. And there's plenty about Kim Jong Un's appearance that would be easy to caricature - in particular his hairstyle - if Walliams had wanted to do that (and he, or his make-up team, clearly have the skill to have done that, had they so wanted).

Walliams' costume is quite obviously an attempt at a realistic portrayal of an individual not mockery of an ethnicity.

quote:Given Walliams history of less than sensitive portrayals, it is entirely reasonable to question his intentions.

Question it, yes. And, having questioned, it is also reasonable to consider fairly the evidence.

quote:Yellowface has been used to insult and replace Asians with attempts at accurate makeup.

These are different things. We're agreed that insulting an ethnic group is wrong, absolutely. I'm assuming that "replace" here refers to casting non-Asian actors as Asian characters, and using make-up to make them look Asian, with the effect that Asian actors don't get hired. I'll provisionally agree* that this is wrong too, because it's discriminatory.

(*provisionally, because in an alternate universe where racism isn't a thing, and any actor could potentially play a character of any ethnicity, with everyone on an equal footing, it wouldn't be discriminatory. In this world, though, it is).

quote:Intention is secondary to reasonably expected reaction.

If you'd said "expected reasonable reactions" I might have agreed with you. It is often going to be uncharitable to do something that a reasonable observer would think was racist, even if you didn't intend to be racist.

I don't agree that there's a general duty to avoid conduct which clearly would not suggest racism on any sort of fair analysis, merely because some people will misconstrue or misrepresent one's actions.

Also, I find that I do, in actual fact, care more about whether David Walliams is really a racist, than I care that there are people who will accuse him of racism, whether he is or not. And therefore I think that his intentions matter.

Even if I thought that he should have avoided the costume because of other people's (possibly unfair) sensitivities - and I could be persuaded of that - I would still think that his actual intentions mattered.

I'll declare an interest here - I'm a LARPer, and I spent all of this weekend portraying a character of a different ethnicity to my own. I don't think you need to ask for pedantic details of how that different ethnicity was portrayed (whether I used clothes/accent/language/skin tone/facial prosthetics/religious iconography/food preferences/mannerisms/slang/whatever) to decide whether the portrayal was racist. You need only ask "Were you taking the piss out of group X?" and get the answer "Of course not" to conclude that it wasn't.

quote:Once again, the makeup was necessary, so why the fuck do it?

Ascribing a racist motive to conduct which is fully explained, and better explained, without racism, is also unnecessary. So why the fuck do that?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:There are two different things here which I think bears some expansion.

There's yellowface used to replace Asians - this is your typical casting of white actors in makeup as Asian characters in films, which contributes to a discriminatory failure to hire Asian actors.

There's yellowface used to mock Asian people, which is something different, and is closely related to white kids pulling their eyes with their fingers to look "slitty-eyed".

Different icing, same cake. They are both based on the dismissal of the worth of brown people.

quote: Repeated assertions do not make an argument.

Right, except that is not what I was doing. The repitition was for emphasis, not to explain a (what should be) self-evident point.

quote: People do costumes in different ways. For some, the idea is to lampoon a particular person, and all that matters is that other people know who you are supposed to be. And in that case I agree that makeup serves little purpose. Other people aim for accuracy in costumes. If these people were going as some tinpot dictator, they would study photos of the person and ensure that they were wearing a uniform with all the correct braid and medals. They're getting a wig with the hair length just right. They're wearing false teeth, cheek pads, and false noses. If you're that kind of person, getting the skin tone right would be very much part of costuming yourself as a particular person. Thus I refute your "it doesn't matter" assertion.

Because someone might wish to get every detail doesn’t mean it is necessary. As for accuracy, Walliams neither gained 4 stone nor used makeup to appear so. He chose to stop short of complete reproduction. He is a realistic example of the second type of person you describe which serves to refute your refutation.

quote:The question is whether you can do this kind of costume as a person of another race without giving the appearance of racism (we'll stipulate that you don't intend to be racist). And I tend to think that the answer is "no" - somebody will always take it the wrong way, and so you are best off choosing a different costume.

I don't think this should be true, but until we have largely eradicated racism from our societies, it will continue to be true.

This is why any fair-minded observer would conclude that Walliams cocked it up. .
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:

I am always surprised by any excuse for doing blackface, or maybe brownface in this instance? It's pretty easy: don't do it.

When Charlie Hebdo was in the news, ya'll were talking about punch up, not down. Blackface punches down; it's a white person pretending to be an ethnicity or race that white people treat like crap. Not all white people, sure, but not saying racist things doesn't give you a free pass to do racist things.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:

quote:Originally posted by AmyBo:it's a white person pretending to be an ethnicity or race that white people treat like crap. Not all white people, sure, but not saying racist things doesn't give you a free pass to do racist things.

You seem to assume an identity between “pretending to be an ethnicity” and “doing a racist thing”. This is question-begging, since that’s the precise point that’s in dispute.

I don’t accept that pretending to be a different ethnicity (in circumstances where it is clear that no insult or mockery of that ethnicity is intended) is racist. I’m not remotely racist, and I do it regularly. If you want to asset that it is, you have to do better than asserting that some (other) white people have done some (different) racist things.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:

Ahhh, a LARPer! I was hoping to get a perspective from someone like you or someone who does cosplay. I really appreciate you putting yourself out there.

Brenda, I forgot to mention that I couldn't make the link to your photo work. It doesn't matter if its a bother, but it would be great to see it Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:

So, is this racist ? Are the comedians involved in the sketch racist because blackface occurs ? Or is the fact they are mocking its existence relevant ? And is the Larp racist because it involves blackface, or because of the way blackface is done ?

Conversely, are people playing Roundheads and cavaliers being sectarian ? Does it depend where that is done, would it be unacceptable in Northern Ireland for example ?

Does the black experience in America, that shapes discourse there, necessarily apply in exactly the same way elsewhere ? The 18th century Englished Black Act wasn't passed because they thought folk were blacking up as form of racist mockery. The Rebecca riots in Wales definitely weren't.

quote:Originally posted by Doublethink.: So, is this racist ? Are the comedians involved in the sketch racist because blackface occurs ? Or is the fact they are mocking its existence relevant ? And is the Larp racist because it involves blackface, or because of the way blackface is done ?

The re-enactment also isn't, in itself, racist. It wouldn't be racist for a group of re-enactors in Congo to re-enact a battle in England, and it isn't racist the other way around either.

The use of make-up also isn't racist. It's costume. Some of the costume portrayed in the sketch is bad, and/or inauthentic (comically so), but that's not enough to make it racist.

The difficult bit is Webb's character's silly voice and mannerism at the end. That quite clearly is drawing on a crass and racist stereotype for inspiration. The only people who would think of portraying black people like that in real life would be trying to insult them. Real re-enactors (who are distinct from, and generally much more pedantic about authenticity than, us mere LARPers) would care more about getting the details right than the characters in the sketch seem to, and I can't easily imagine that a real re-enactor so stuck for realistic inspiration about his role as Webb's character seems to be would be playing that role in the first place. I suppose the only answer is that Webb's character is ignorant and inept, but there's no evidence that he intends any insult - and, most importantly, he's an unrealistic fictional character, with deliberate inconsistencies written into his persona for comic effect. But, on balance, he's not a racist, he is merely, and briefly, acting like one.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:

Reading that thing on the not-welsh borders morris dancers reminded me of the Black Boy Inn at Caernerfon in Wales, where we stayed for a couple of nights a few years back. There's a few stories of the origin of the name, one being that it was a hideaway for Royalists, and named after King Charles II's cradle name. That's my fave, but begs the question of why the Parliamentary forces didn't put two and two together.

We did hesitate to book the place because of the name, and my recollection is that it was the best value for the location, close to the West Highland Railway. I think I ended up booking it because of the food reputation, and in that I was disappointed.

The pub is great for non-British people who have never seen a modest building older than the nineteenth century. It's a rabbit warren but our room at least was roomy. Do not attempt to move large pieces of furniture through there. A backpack could be a problem. It's got a reputation for good welsh food, but I wasn't impressed. Sauce upon sauce upon sauce is not my style.

The other thing I suppose is that we British (and I include myself because Australians like me are just British colonials) are hardly the leaders in inclusivity and what we do needs to be viewed having regard to our tradition of considering ourselves the naturally superior race. Slavery, apartheid, forced labor, white Australia policy are all par for our course. We can't forget this when we think about race.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:

Still, at least we are not as bad as the Belgians.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:Originally posted by Doublethink.: So, is this racist ? Are the comedians involved in the sketch racist because blackface occurs ? Or is the fact they are mocking its existence relevant ? And is the Larp racist because it involves blackface, or because of the way blackface is done ?

Any reasonable person (Hell, anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex) would understand that lack of intent doesn't preclude harm.Such a person would also conclude that privilege might obscure one's view.*I love the effort at a back-story to the Mitchell and Webb sketch, but such contortions are not necessary.They do absurdist comedy, they pushed the sketch in an absurd direction. It is just that simple.Is their sketch racist? I've a mixed view on it. ISTM, their intention was just absurdity. The make-up is extremely cringe-worthy but wouldn't have been excusable if it had been film-quality.I don't know that lack of racist intent obviates the problem that they are essentially using centuries of mockery for a quick laugh.

*But then there is this, so...

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:I don’t accept that pretending to be a different ethnicity (in circumstances where it is clear that no insult or mockery of that ethnicity is intended) is racist. I’m not remotely racist, and I do it regularly.

quote:If you want to asset that it is, you have to do better than asserting that some (other) white people have done some (different) racist things.

No, you want the exception. You need to prove why it should be so.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:

No, I think the onus lies with you lil B. I'm not sure if you're dodging it. It reads that way, but I'm unsure.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha: Any reasonable person (Hell, anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex) would understand that lack of intent doesn't preclude harm.

I think this one of the sources of confusion/disagreement on this thread. In the sense that most people think of racism as a moral offence, they tend to transfer rules of thumb from how we evaluate crime.

To be found guilty of a crime, you require both a guilty act *and* a guilty mind (intentionality). Your responsibility In a given situation is, in theory, determined by your intentions and not by the severity of the outcome.

You appear to be implying that the presence of harm is evidence of moral offence.

This may partly reflect whether one is thinking about racism as an individual attitude/discrimination or whether one is reflecting on systemic racism.

I do not consider myself racist, but I recognised that my service not having purchased the assessment tools necessary for use with non-native English speakers rendered our service systemically racist.

It may be that people engage in blackface/yellow face either with or without the intention of mocking people of other races - so having racist beliefs or not - but it might be reasonable to assert that blackface is a form of systemic racism regardless, because it creates a hostile atmosphere for folk of the race imitated.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:

quote:Originally posted by simontoad: The other thing I suppose is that we British (and I include myself because Australians like me are just British colonials) are hardly the leaders in inclusivity and what we do needs to be viewed having regard to our tradition of considering ourselves the naturally superior race. Slavery, apartheid, forced labor, white Australia policy are all par for our course. We can't forget this when we think about race.

I would not dispute this, the British Empire was built of the back of criminal and viscious exploitation. But the history of Britain is not identical with the US.

I recall Twitter exchanges where Americans have argued it is impossible to be racist to white people - on the grounds it doesn't form systemic oppression - but I am convinced that the Irish experience in the UK in the 20th century disproves that. The same might be said of the Scots, who experienced ethnic cleansing at the hands of the English in the 18th century. Arguably, the experience of Eastern Europeans in the UK now also provides counter evidence. England has been, and continues to be, a racist country - that's undeniable.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:

The first doesn’t require intent at all, but it only applies where there is a competition for roles, and people of one group are using make-up to take roles that others would get with no reciprocity. It’s irrelevant to the cases we are discussing.

We’re also agreed that deliberate racial insults are wrong. And I think we’re agreed that something might look like a deliberate insult without being one, and it would be polite to avoid giving that appearance. Intention, is relevant to both, though in different ways. What is common to both is that an observer could conclude that an insult might have been intended (even if that could be a mistaken impression).

But where it is obvious that no insult is intended, or at least where that would be obvious to any fair-minded person, there’s no harm. No one has to feel insulted. I can’t stop people choosing to take offence, but I see no reason to let those people dictate my choice of hobby.

quote:No, you want the exception. You need to prove why it should be so.

No. I think the general rule is “don’t treat people less favourably on racial grounds - otherwise, wear whatever the fuck you like”.

I don’t think there is a general rule “don’t dress up as other races”, so I don’t think I need an exception to it. We are agreed that it is at least sometimes wrong, and I think that is because of the specific harms that have been identified, and which we would both say apply to the instances which we agree are wrong. You seem to be arguing that dressing up as another race is still generally wrong even if those harms are entirely avoided (as they are in most of the cases under discussion here), and I think that you haven’t even begun to make a convincing case for that.

His name is indeed Williams, but apparently Equity advised him to change it for his stage name as they already had a David Williams on their books.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:

Well, my instinct was right! Thanks for the info.

IJ
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Doublethink.: So, is this racist ? Are the comedians involved in the sketch racist because blackface occurs ? Or is the fact they are mocking its existence relevant ? And is the Larp racist because it involves blackface, or because of the way blackface is done ?

Yep, racist.

I don't think racist is a huge moral failing; I think it can be that we jut missed the mark. I've missed the mark all the time. But then I look at what I did.

In the context of American history especially, Blackface was used to denigrate, ridicule, and reinforce institutional racism, and carries those values with it. It's still really loaded. Race isn't shoe polish, and to try to change one's race with paint reduces the experience of people of color -that white people cannot fully understand - to costume. That's rude.

I've seen a LARPer in shoe polish or whatever they've used, and it was cringeworthy at best. I avoided him; it wasn't my space to challenge him (it was my first time); however, I couldn't look him in the eye and it was part of my reasoning for not going back.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Doublethink.:I recall Twitter exchanges where Americans have argued it is impossible to be racist to white people - on the grounds it doesn't form systemic oppression -

Racism is bias based on race. Anyone can be racist, with or without any oppression.The difference is what harm it does.

quote:Originally posted by Doublethink.: but it might be reasonable to assert that blackface is a form of systemic racism regardless, because it creates a hostile atmosphere for folk of the race imitated.

This is something that any reasonable person will recognise.

quote:Originally posted by Doublethink.:You appear to be implying that the presence of harm is evidence of moral offence.

When what one does causes harm, one should feel the need to understand why. I don't see that here. I see people hanging their hat on intent. If one is going to use law as a model, think of it like the negligence laws. Intent is not the criterion here, but failure of reasonable action.Dressing up as a member of a group which still suffers from oppression for amusement is going to be fraught, regardless of intent.It is privilege that blinds one to this.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:

quote:Originally posted by AmyBo:

quote:Originally posted by Doublethink.: So, is this racist ? Are the comedians involved in the sketch racist because blackface occurs ? Or is the fact they are mocking its existence relevant ? And is the Larp racist because it involves blackface, or because of the way blackface is done ?

Yep, racist.

I don't think racist is a huge moral failing; I think it can be that we jut missed the mark. I've missed the mark all the time. But then I look at what I did.

In the context of American history especially, Blackface was used to denigrate, ridicule, and reinforce institutional racism, and carries those values with it. It's still really loaded. Race isn't shoe polish, and to try to change one's race with paint reduces the experience of people of color -that white people cannot fully understand - to costume. That's rude.

I've seen a LARPer in shoe polish or whatever they've used, and it was cringeworthy at best. I avoided him; it wasn't my space to challenge him (it was my first time); however, I couldn't look him in the eye and it was part of my reasoning for not going back.

I really like this post, especially the bit where you review your actions with humility. I would say that racism isn't necessarily a huge moral failing. If that's your insight (and I'm sticking a word in) I think its a good one.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:

quote:Originally posted by AmyBo:Yep, racist.

For clarity, are you saying that Mitchell and Webb are being racist, or that the (fictional) re-enactors that they are sending up are racist?

quote:I don't think racist is a huge moral failing;

I do think that being racist is a huge moral failing.

And I think that this a mark of superiority for my position over yours.

quote:In the context of American history especially, Blackface was used to denigrate, ridicule, and reinforce institutional racism

For sure. But we aren't taking about denigration, ridicule or reinforcement of institutional injustice. Everyone on this thread, as far I can see, agrees that dressing up as another race for that sort of purpose would be wrong.

We aren't even talking about cases which could easily be misconstrued as that. I don't think it's possible to look at Walliams' costume and honestly think that he dressed up like that to take the piss out of Korean people. I don't think it's possible to watch the Mitchell and Webb sketch and honestly think that they wrote it to take the piss out of Congolese people.

Well, maybe it is possible, but the viewer would need to be phenomenally obtuse, and grossly unfair. There really isn't any reasonable way to confuse what those performers are doing with the sort of racism that gave us blackface, and I think it's disingenuous to argue as if there was.

quote:Race isn't shoe polish

And a sheet of clingfilm stretched over a gap in silver coloured fabric won't keep you alive in the cold vacuum of space.

But it'll do if you're dressing up as an astronaut.

quote:to try to change one's race with paint reduces the experience of people of color -that white people cannot fully understand - to costume.

It's trivially true that a white person can't fully understand the experience of a person of colour, because no one can fully understand anybody else's experience. SFW?

Can we agree that if I, a person of race A, had the talent to write a story in which the lead character was a person of race B, that would not, in itself, be racist?

If I did that, I would probably do two things - I would signal that the character was indeed of race B, and I would imagine how that character would think and act, taking into account the personality I had written for him of which his membership of race B might be a greater or lesser factor, in the circumstances of the story. The signalling could be done in various ways - describing a skin colour, use of an ethnic name, reference to a place of birth, use of religious or cultural features - and would be relatively simple. However the fact that the signalling of race is achieved with the shallowest effort, is no clue whatsoever to the depth of thought that I may (or may not) have put into imagining the character and his experiences.

LARP is a form of story-telling. It can, like any other form, be done well, or it can be done badly. I don't think any serious LARPer thinks that they can "fully understand" the experience of a different race or culture, but that doesn't mean that making the effort is valueless - at a minimum, it gives an appreciation that the experience is different, and that my way of seeing the world isn't the only one.

Different LARPers have different standards of costume and authenticity - but essentially the costume is the signal. Painting one's face green or black is the exact equivalent of writing "Grallac had lived all his life in the goblin-warrens of Dastria..." or "A young African-American man was standing in the corner of the room..." in a novel. It tells you a bit about the character as a prelude to actually telling their story. It's that subsequent imagining which is the real point of the exercise.

It seems to me that if it isn't racist to imagine and portray a character of a different race through a written medium, it isn't racist to do so through an improvised dramatic medium either. Your complaint that we can't fully understand another race's experience is as nonsensical to me as an objection to LARP as I hope it is to you as an objection to novels.

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:And I think that this a mark of superiority for my position over yours.

Superior...Telling choice of words.

quote:For sure. But we aren't taking about denigration, ridicule or reinforcement of institutional injustice.

A more correct way of constructing that sentence would be 'we aren't talking about intentional denigration, ridicule or reinforcement of institutional injustice.'

quote:We aren't even talking about cases which could easily be misconstrued as that. I don't think it's possible to look at Walliams' costume and honestly think that he dressed up like that to take the piss out of Korean people.

Of course it is possible. Is it reasonable? From a photograph one cannot know his intentions. His behaviour would give more clues, however, barring descriptions of that surfacing we do not know those.

quote: I don't think it's possible to watch the Mitchell and Webb sketch and honestly think that they wrote it to take the piss out of Congolese people.

No one said anything about Congolese people or M&W taking the piss out of a nationality.

quote:Well, maybe it is possible, but the viewer would need to be phenomenally obtuse, and grossly unfair. There really isn't any reasonable way to confuse what those performers are doing with the sort of racism that gave us blackface, and I think it's disingenuous to argue as if there was.

What a moronic statement. No, not accurate: Your post is an advanced stage, syphilitic moron with severe oxygen deprivation. If it were not for the history of blackface, the sketch would not have happened. It needs that history to make sense.

quote:It's trivially true that a white person can't fully understand the experience of a person of colour, because no one can fully understand anybody else's experience. SFW?

Holy shit! And I though the last statement daft. It isn't trivial. That you think it is underscore how little you appear to comprehend racism and its legacy.

quote:Can we agree that if I, a person of race A, had the talent to write a story in which the lead character was a person of race B, that would not, in itself, be racist?

Slow your roll. Writing ≠ LARP.

quote:LARP is a form of story-telling.

No it isn't. It is a bunch of grown-arse people who still wanna play dress-up. I know, because I've seen it and feel sympathy towards the participants. Erm, I am sympathetic towards the desire to LARP. Hell, some of my best friends have LARP'd and I've read a bit, so I am an expert with a deep knowledge of the whole thing. Except for the trivial bits, of course.

Sarcasm aside, LARP is more akin to improv with a particular set of limitations than it is to story telling. In other words; dress-up for grownups. This is not denigration, but an accurate description.

quote: but essentially the costume is the signal.

And all that is necessary.

quote: Painting one's face green or black is the exact equivalent of writing "Grallac had lived all his life in the goblin-warrens of Dastria..." or "A young African-American man was standing in the corner of the room..." in a novel.

No, the fuck, it isn't. Black people aren't fictional, for one. Literature has its own problems with racist caricatures and inauthentic characters. But we needn't go down that tangent.

LARPenacting is a visual medium. You see the skinny white dude in blackface and a bad afro pretending to be Sigidi kaSenzangakhona (Shaka) Zulu.If blackface were truly ancient history, then your "respectful" re-enactment argument might have legs. As it is not, it does not.

A related anecdote. I once watched a production of The Elephant Man in which the man playing Merrick wore no prosthetic at all. The play was brilliant. And no one was at all confused. Weird, huh?
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:Originally posted by AmyBo:Yep, racist.

For clarity, are you saying that Mitchell and Webb are being racist, or that the (fictional) re-enactors that they are sending up are racist?

It's all racist. Doing racist things to send up racism is still racist.

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:I don't think racist is a huge moral failing;

I do think that being racist is a huge moral failing.

And I think that this a mark of superiority for my position over yours.

I am little offended by this; I will endeavor to stay in purgatory though. I think it can be a spectrum. Some of it is a huge moral failing, but it's not all so. Such as a tacky sketch.

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:In the context of American history especially, Blackface was used to denigrate, ridicule, and reinforce institutional racism

For sure. But we aren't taking about denigration, ridicule or reinforcement of institutional injustice. Everyone on this thread, as far I can see, agrees that dressing up as another race for that sort of purpose would be wrong.

We aren't even talking about cases which could easily be misconstrued as that. I don't think it's possible to look at Walliams' costume and honestly think that he dressed up like that to take the piss out of Korean people. I don't think it's possible to watch the Mitchell and Webb sketch and honestly think that they wrote it to take the piss out of Congolese people.

Well, maybe it is possible, but the viewer would need to be phenomenally obtuse, and grossly unfair. There really isn't any reasonable way to confuse what those performers are doing with the sort of racism that gave us blackface, and I think it's disingenuous to argue as if there was.

I think you just called me obtuse?

It's not about nationality, it's about RACE. In that case, Black people. That performance IS blackface. The act of putting on makeup to look like another race is in and of itself a denigrating act. The BLACK people being ridiculed for their BLACKNESS cannot take off their BLACK skin and walk away. It's not a costume.

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:Race isn't shoe polish

And a sheet of clingfilm stretched over a gap in silver coloured fabric won't keep you alive in the cold vacuum of space.

But it'll do if you're dressing up as an astronaut.

For the people in back: RACE. IS. NOT. COSTUME.
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:to try to change one's race with paint reduces the experience of people of color -that white people cannot fully understand - to costume.

It's trivially true that a white person can't fully understand the experience of a person of colour, because no one can fully understand anybody else's experience. SFW?

Can we agree that if I, a person of race A, had the talent to write a story in which the lead character was a person of race B, that would not, in itself, be racist?

I'm really struggling with this. To write and to mock a person's appearance are such different things that I'm not seeing the connection. And the act of writing does not shield oneself from racism any more than sexism; but that's a different topic.

I'm not responding to the rest because I think we're getting too personal.

Peace!
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:

quote:Originally posted by AmyBo:I'm not responding to the rest because I think we're getting too personal.

I apologise. I think the position you are arguing for is flawed, but you are quite right that it doesn't need to be personal.

I am sorry I offended you, and will try to argue less aggressively.

I will have a go at getting to the heart of our disagreement, though.

quote:I'm really struggling with this. To write and to mock a person's appearance are such different things that I'm not seeing the connection.

OK - the reason you're struggling is that you don't seem to get that I deeply disagree with this:

quote:Originally posted by AmyBo:The act of putting on makeup to look like another race is in and of itself a denigrating act.

You seem to think that this is obviously true. To me it seems obviously wrong.

I'm NOT saying that dressing up as another race is NEVER wrong. You, and others, have cited cases of it which I completely agree are wrong - and we can identify, and agree about, what makes those cases wrong. But you have failed to set out a cogent argument from the specific cases that we agree about to the general rule that you are arguing for. The racism is NOT inherent in the act of dressing up. The racism is in the mockery. Subtract that, and what's left is innocent.

Do you think, for example, that if the Mitchell and Webb sketch were reversed, and a group of black re-enactors were dressing up as roundheads and cavaliers, that would be racist? Even if they were as comically bad at it as the white actors were at dressing up as Congolese soldiers?

Because I don't see how it would. There's simply no reasonable way to see bad ECW re-enactment and leap to the conclusion that the English as a race are being mocked.

I'm applying that same reasoning to all races. If it's obvious that there's no racial mockery, there's no reason to see racism. You seem to be saying that even if you knew for certain that there was no racial mockery you would still see racism. To me - because I think racism is a serious fault - that is not only an illogical position, it risks being an unfair one.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:

quote:Originally posted by AmyBo: ]I'm really struggling with this. To write and to mock a person's appearance are such different things that I'm not seeing the connection. And the act of writing does not shield oneself from racism any more than sexism; but that's a different topic.

Which Is why I'm against those who mock the size of Trump's hands. He has absolutely no control over that and it's offensive. There's enough to criticise about what he says without geting into this area.

There seems to me to be an enormous difference between black-face or yellow-face on the one hand and caricaturing Kim on the other. Walliams gives every appearance of attacking Kim and not being at all racist.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Gee D: Which Is why I'm against those who mock the size of Trump's hands. He has absolutely no control over that and it's offensive. There's enough to criticise about what he says without geting into this area.

Though I've done this, I agree with you. But if you are attempting to claim parity with black/yellowface, we part.

quote:There seems to me to be an enormous difference between black-face or yellow-face on the one hand and caricaturing Kim on the other.

There is a difference and no one thus far is arguing there isn't.

quote: Walliams gives every appearance of attacking Kim and not being at all racist.

No. We have one (ONE 1 UN UNO) aspect of him from that night. His image which, granted, isn't a caricature. Even supposing he did not do a typical Walliams performance, the makeup is enough to warrant the accusation.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:I don't think it's possible to look at Walliams' costume and honestly think that he dressed up like that to take the piss out of Korean people.

Of course it is possible. Is it reasonable? From a photograph one cannot know his intentions. His behaviour would give more clues, however, barring descriptions of that surfacing we do not know those.

Except that Walliams hasn't been criticised for his words or behaviour in his Kim-persona. He's been criticised for the costume.

And we do know - to a high level of certainty - that the costume is not intended to mock Koreans in general, because we know what a caricature Korean costume would look like, and it would look very little like the one that Walliams is wearing.

And if we don't have any reason to think that, apart from the costume, Walliams said or did anything racist, then can we agree to extend him the basic courtesy of assuming that he didn't? Or is that too much to ask for a man whose choice of costume you disapprove of?

I'm happy to discuss this here, but if you'd be more comfortable doing it in Hell, then go for it.

quote:If it were not for the history of blackface, the sketch would not have happened. It needs that history to make sense.

Yes! It's a joke about racism. Obviously it could only be made in a world in which racism is a thing. That does not make the sketch racist. It just doesn't.

quote:Writing ≠ LARP.

I didn't say that it was. I was responding to a specific assertion by AmyBo that portraying a black person in one medium (LARP) is wrong because white people can't fully understand black people's experiences.

If valid, that argument would apply equally to writing, because it is not conditional on any factor specific to LARP. Fiction writing shares with LARP the quality of a person representing the thoughts, actions, words and character of another (imagined) person with different experiences. If attempting to cross the racial divide is wrong, because it is impossible, in one instance, it is wrong in the other, for the same reason.

When applied to writing, the argument is clearly nonsense. Therefore the argument is not valid. There may be other reasons to distinguish the two sorts of expression, but AmyBo did not provide any.

quote:

quote:LARP is a form of story-telling.

No it isn't. It is a bunch of grown-arse people who still wanna play dress-up.

And here's me doing it for thirty years, and all this time I've though that the "RP" in "LARP" stood for role-playing, and that it was a direct descendant of the sort of interactive story-telling games known as RPGs. Guess not.

The dressing up is fun, though. I admit that.

quote:If blackface were truly ancient history, then your "respectful" re-enactment argument might have legs. As it is not, it does not.

For clarity, I have not argued that Halloween costumes, LARP, re-enactment, story-telling or anything else is, or should be, "respectful". I think that would be a completely impossible standard to apply.

I am arguing that if something is not malicious, and cannot reasonably be taken to be malicious, it shouldn't be viewed as such. I am arguing against the view that would say, for example, "I'm pretty sure that David Walliams wasn't mocking Korean people or intending to express any other racist message, but that doesn't matter - I'm going to be just as offended as if he was".

quote:A related anecdote. I once watched a production of The Elephant Man in which the man playing Merrick wore no prosthetic at all. The play was brilliant. And no one was at all confused. Weird, huh?

Why would I find that weird? I've said already that authenticity in portraying a character is not a fixed standard. Presumably the way in which the Merrick character appeared to other characters in the play was signalled by some other means than costume.

I once saw a production of Measure for Measure where Isabella was played by a very short, black woman, and Claudio (her brother) by a tall white man, and that also worked. The fact that the characters were closely related, even though the actors could not have looked more different, was signalled by scripted words and acted affection. Theatre is like that. The conventions allow for that sort of suspension of disbelief.

I'm at a loss as to how you can get from the (perfectly true) observation than there are varieties of creative expression where certain sorts of costuming are unnecessary to the conclusion that they are always wrong.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:

We must part then. No parody on the basic of physical make-up is warranted, be that make-up skin colour, hand size or shape of nose. It's just that the hand size refers to only one person - at this stage.

As to warranting an accusation, most definitely no. Walliams is very clearly not having a go at Korean people generally, but at one very dangerous and extremely cruel one, one who has chosen - as did his immediate forebears - to take out his cruelty on his own people.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:Can we agree that if I, a person of race A, had the talent to write a story in which the lead character was a person of race B, that would not, in itself, be racist?

Making the effort to imagine yourself into a character of another race, in order to write fiction that encourages others to do the same, sounds to me like an action that will tend to reduce the amount of racial prejudice in the world.

Thinking you've succeeded may be kidding yourself, depending on your skill as a writer, but the attempt itself seems like something that those who are against racial prejudice should welcome.

quote:I would imagine how that character would think and act, taking into account the personality I had written for him of which his membership of race B might be a greater or lesser factor

I suspect that to lilBuddha the idea that race might be a lesser factor (in who the character is) might be hard to swallow.

Whereas I'd say that you don't get to a non-racist society - a society where people of different races co-exist and race isn't important - without a whole lot of fiction in which that's normal.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:

In my little corner of letters, we spend all our time writing about other races, nay even other species. How do you write about Martians at all, except by imagination? I am writing a series of historical thrillers in which all the characters are (by historical necessity) white. By major effort I did wedge in one batch of Asians, but it took many volumes to get it to that point. I could be exploiting white men, it is true; they have my sympathy.And, if there is interest, I could find you another link to an image. It is of myself, taken last week at Halloween; I am wearing a very complete and pretty accurate Regency gown, spencer, bonnet, reticule and slippers all complete. It would be a sad thing, if I were confined only to cheong-sam and sam-fu.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:Except that Walliams hasn't been criticised for his words or behaviour in his Kim-persona. He's been criticised for the costume.

What I am saying is that there is one piece of evidence and not the preponderance you keep referencing.

quote:And we do know - to a high level of certainty - that the costume is not intended to mock Koreans in general,

Which appears to be projection as far as I can tell.

quote:

quote:What a moronic statement.

So humour this moron and refute it with an actual argument?

I did. Hard to put it more simply. M&W's costume choice and Webb's line are exactly blackface and needs the history, and the attendant discrimination, to register at all. So, even though they are not intending to be racist, it has the same effect.

I'm happy to discuss this here, but if you'd be more comfortable doing it in Hell, then go for it.

That reply was within Purgatorial Guidelines, exactly the same as your "any reasonable person".

quote:

quote:If it were not for the history of blackface, the sketch would not have happened. It needs that history to make sense.

Yes! It's a joke about racism.

No, it isn't. It is a joke about re-enactors. More specifically, it is a typical M&W absurdist tableau which uses re-enactors as a foil.

quote: Obviously it could only be made in a world in which racism is a thing. That does not make the sketch racist. It just doesn't.

This is an assertion, not a reasoned argument.

quote:I was responding to a specific assertion by AmyBo that portraying a black person in one medium (LARP) is wrong because white people can't fully understand black people's experiences.

Fairly certain this is not what she is saying. She appears to be saying that it is offencive because it is blackface and modern versions, despite good intent, carry the weight of negative history. Largely because the negative isn't just history, but present reality.

quote: Fiction writing shares with LARP the quality of a person representing the thoughts, actions, words and character of another (imagined) person with different experiences. If attempting to cross the racial divide is wrong, because it is impossible, in one instance, it is wrong in the other, for the same reason.

Writing is a considerably more complex issue than LARP. And, as I said has its own issues. Especially the one where black authors writing black characters have a much more difficult time getting contracts than white authors writing about black characters.

quote:And here's me doing it for thirty years, and all this time I've though that the "RP" in "LARP" stood for role-playing, and that it was a direct descendant of the sort of interactive story-telling games known as RPGs.

Children playing dress-up generally role play as well. It is kinda the point. Dungeons and Dragons in the sun; does that work for you? Ren faire for people who can't get laid?

quote:

quote:If blackface were truly ancient history, then your "respectful" re-enactment argument might have legs. As it is not, it does not.

For clarity, I have not argued that Halloween costumes, LARP, re-enactment, story-telling or anything else is, or should be, "respectful". I think that would be a completely impossible standard to apply.

So they are disrespectful you admit?

quote:I am arguing that if something is not malicious, and cannot reasonably be taken to be malicious, it shouldn't be viewed as such.

There you go with the "reasonably" again. Which is not reasoned support of your position as much as it is a passive-aggressive statement to ridicule those who disagree.

quote: I am arguing against the view that would say, for example, "I'm pretty sure that David Walliams wasn't mocking Korean people or intending to express any other racist message, but that doesn't matter - I'm going to be just as offended as if he was".

Well, then you are arguing against no one on this thread. Because this position has not been stated.The position of myself, and I think AmyBo, is that intent doesn't trump result.

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:Do you think, for example, that if the Mitchell and Webb sketch were reversed, and a group of black re-enactors were dressing up as roundheads and cavaliers, that would be racist? Even if they were as comically bad at it as the white actors were at dressing up as Congolese soldiers?

Yeah, your reversal is exactly the same because there is all that history of black people enslaving white people, stealing their land, raping them, disenfranchising them, imprisoning them keeping them poor and then mocking them as well.

quote:If it were not for the history of blackface, the sketch would not have happened. It needs that history to make sense.

Yes! It's a joke about racism. Obviously it could only be made in a world in which racism is a thing. That does not make the sketch racist. It just doesn't.

It hurts people who *do* experience racism *now*. And a joke about racism should only be done by someone who and/or whose people have been on the receiving end. Otherwise, it's just more insensitive treatment, at *best*.

About blackface: Is that considered acceptable in the UK? (Painting with a broad brush.) Here, it's never, ever acceptable. There are people who do it; but they're intentionally mocking African Americans, or wildly insensitive, or deeply ignorant.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:

Eliab--

quote:Originally posted by Eliab: I don't think it's possible to watch the Mitchell and Webb sketch and honestly think that they wrote it to take the piss out of Congolese people.

Um...why in the world would anyone think it's ok to make fun of folks from the Congo? Because they're black and far away?

quote: Painting one's face green or black is the exact equivalent of writing "Grallac had lived all his life in the goblin-warrens of Dastria..." or "A young African-American man was standing in the corner of the room..." in a novel. It tells you a bit about the character as a prelude to actually telling their story. It's that subsequent imagining which is the real point of the exercise.

It seems to me that if it isn't racist to imagine and portray a character of a different race through a written medium, it isn't racist to do so through an improvised dramatic medium either. Your complaint that we can't fully understand another race's experience is as nonsensical to me as an objection to LARP as I hope it is to you as an objection to novels.

The difference is that black people exist. TTBOMK, there've never been goblins nor green humanoids on this planet. So putting green paint on your face is unlikely to hurt/offend anyone, unless it's a sickly green. Depending on the goblin get-up, you might offend/hurt someone, if you go with the traditional interpretation of them as short, ugly, and deformed--because those conditions do happen among humans, and the people with them are subjected to a lot of crap.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:

One of the current Border Morris sides, Boggart's Breakfast is using very ornate blue make up along with their black costumes which is an interesting way of dealing with this.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

Chimney sweeps wore turbans?The history of Morris traditions isn’t perfectly clear. Except for the name, which is derivative of Moorish and the 15th C statue set of dancers which includes a black man. It is a muddled thing which could be one, the other or both.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:

Mummers' plays often include a character called the 'Turkish Knight' who fights St George and is killed - probably a reference to the Crusades. That's the most likely explanation of the statue set you reference (do you have a picture?). Mummers also did Morris dancing.

As you say, the origins of Morris dancing are unclear. Probably we are dealing with several points of origin.

Yes, I know... references to the Crusades are problematic too.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

Interesting. It looks more like a real black person than someone white in blackface, though. It's also not an English statue; I was unaware that there were Morris traditions elsewhere in Europe.

I wonder if the statues are portraits of a real dance troupe, and one of the members of the troupe just happened to be black? No way of telling now, of course...
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Golden Key:And a joke about racism should only be done by someone who and/or whose people have been on the receiving end.

I disagree. I believe that I am absolutely entitled to regard racists and racism with ridicule and contempt, and to laugh at them. I do not believe that I need to have been hurt personally by racism to find it an absurd, as well as an unjust, form of conduct.

quote:Um...why in the world would anyone think it's ok to make fun of folks from the Congo? Because they're black and far away?

Why ask me? I don't think it's OK to mock any racial group. And I think I've said that often enough on this thread that if you missed it, it's not my fault.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

quote:What a moronic statement.

So humour this moron and refute it with an actual argument?

I did. Hard to put it more simply. M&W's costume choice and Webb's line are exactly blackface and needs the history, and the attendant discrimination, to register at all. So, even though they are not intending to be racist, it has the same effect.

I think I said in my first comments on the sketch that the character’s behaviour was clearly based on crass and racist stereotypes, so pointing the same thing out with slightly different words doesn’t really count as either an argument or a refutation.

Yes, the sketch depends on a history of racism. Obviously.

But equally obviously, the sketch isn’t making any negative comment about anyone based on race. Hence, where’s the offence?

Are you saying that you don’t like seeing racism represented at all, in a light entertainment medium, even by people that you know aren’t racist? If so, sure, I get that. Some people can’t watch fictional depictions of all sorts of unpleasant things, and others don’t mind. I’ve got my own list of things I’d rather not see. That’s not an argument that the depiction is necessarily wrong – it’s an argument in favour of trigger warnings.

quote:

quote:I was responding to a specific assertion by AmyBo that portraying a black person in one medium (LARP) is wrong because white people can't fully understand black people's experiences.

Fairly certain this is not what she is saying.

That is pretty much exactly what she said, except she used “people of color” rather than “black”.

quote:Dungeons and Dragons in the sun; does that work for you? Ren faire for people who can't get laid?

I think a “ren faire” is mostly a US usage, so I really couldn’t comment on your relative likelihood of getting laid there or at a LARP event. Why not turn up to both, and see?

quote:

quote:

quote:If blackface were truly ancient history, then your "respectful" re-enactment argument might have legs. As it is not, it does not.

For clarity, I have not argued that Halloween costumes, LARP, re-enactment, story-telling or anything else is, or should be, "respectful". I think that would be a completely impossible standard to apply.

So they are disrespectful you admit?

No, I don’t admit that. I just think “respectful” is completely unworkable as a standard of behaviour in this area. Walliams’ costume, for instance, probably isn’t intended to reference Koreans in general at all, and if so, is neither respectful nor disrespectful of them. I don’t think the M&W sketch is particularly respectful of anyone, but I don’t think its wrong on that account.

quote: There you go with the "reasonably" again. Which is not reasoned support of your position as much as it is a passive-aggressive statement to ridicule those who disagree.

No – it’s a recognition that some conclusions drawn about a person’s message, intent and purpose from their behaviour can be justified (even if in fact mistaken) because they are based on good grounds, and some can’t, because the conclusions aren’t well supported.

In my usual form of discourse (UK legal practice) “reasonable” is the word commonly used to make that distinction. It is not aggressive (passively or otherwise) or intended to ridicule others.

quote:Yeah, your reversal is exactly the same because there is all that history of black people enslaving white people, stealing their land, raping them, disenfranchising them, imprisoning them keeping them poor and then mocking them as well.

Again, that’s a response to AmyBo’s position which was explicitly that “The act of putting on makeup to look like another race is in and of itself a denigrating act”.

She is not (when making that argument at least) relying on any particular history of racial interaction. She is saying that dressing up as another race (at least if you use make-up) is inherently a racist act.

You can defend parts of your case (the parts, in fact, that I am not attacking and agree with) by saying that there’s a history of racial oppression against black people, but you can’t use that to defend a case which is expressly advanced as applying to all races whatever.

Painting one's face green or black is the exact equivalent of writing "Grallac had lived all his life in the goblin-warrens of Dastria..." or "A young African-American man was standing in the corner of the room..." in a novel. It tells you a bit about the character as a prelude to actually telling their story. It's that subsequent imagining which is the real point of the exercise.

So what do BME people do when they participate in LARP, playing the roles of white people? Do they use really pale foundation to "signal" that they represent a white person? Or do they do a "white voice"?

Or do they either (a) not do "signalling" of this kind or (b) not participate in LARP at all?
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:

There's a disconnect here, and I think I see it? Most of us are looking at this through the lens of being white. That's white privilege. Let's look at this through the lens of the person whose race is being portrayed. Do you still want to play dress-up as another race, or reduce their race to paint?

As for the LARPing thing, I'll get specific. My experience is with rendezvous-era re-enactment. Some very fraught racial tensions there already. I was personally appalled by a man who was white and decided to portray a Native character. The body paint he used to make himself look darker was really gross - both from a makeup perspective and from one of racial sensitivity, or lack thereof. But even if he left off the paint, he very well could be appropriating the culture of our neighbors. It's a delicate balance, and there is a lot of gray area; I tend to err on the side of caution because I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of such appropriation.

So maybe a "Moorish knight" or whatever POC a white guy is playing is OK, but then I have to ask, why? Can't you make room for people of that ancestry to play that character? Because the "indian" in grease paint made it pretty clear no Natives need apply.

I'm not calling the people in question jerks or evil. The act may be racist, but the person isn't necessarily a racist. It's not personal; there's no need to dig in and get defensive.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:

The disconnect actually seems to be between Europeans and Americans. Americans are saying 'this is obviously racist' from the context of their culture and (some of) the Europeans are saying 'it's not so obvious from where we're standing.'

My own position: I wouldn't want to give offence by dressing up as a character of a different race for a costume party or a LARP... but I've been a Chinese peasant, a Hebrew slave and various other characters in operas I've taken part in. No, we didn't do yellowface for Turandot but we did wear slightly darker makeup than usual for Nabucco. Should we stop performing these works because Puccini and Verdi were Europeans writing about different races?

I think that the blackface Morris teams should stop blacking their faces, or choose different colours (I saw one team that had made themselves up in all the colours of the rainbow, thus annoying racists and homophobes in one act; their dancing was pretty good, too); but I can also see why the people who are protesting ('it's just tradition! it's got nothing to do with the Black and White Minstrels!') are upset at another example of the inexorable march of American cultural imperialism.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:But equally obviously, the sketch isn’t making any negative comment about anyone based on race.

Your posts seem to indicate that you either do not have the ability to understand or the willingness to; so going further on this example may be pointless.

quote:Are you saying that you don’t like seeing racism represented at all, in a light entertainment medium, even by people that you know aren’t racist?

No, not what I am saying. Depictions of racism can have a positive purpose, even in light entertainment. But they can also be throw-away bits, like the M&W sketch, that trivialise a group's experience for the sake of a laugh.

quote:I think a “ren faire” is mostly a US usage,

Worldwide, actually, though there appear to be more in the US. But living history, medieval faires, whatever. I grabbed a quick adult dress-up reference. Could have said Furries.

quote: I just think “respectful” is completely unworkable as a standard of behaviour in this area.

Sorry, you'll have to explain this one a bit better. Why shouldn't respect be part of it? Granted, a large percentage of LARP appears to be fictional characters that the term doesn't apply to.

quote:In my usual form of discourse (UK legal practice) “reasonable” is the word commonly used to make that distinction.

Yes, and then an explanation of why said thing is reasonable could be required to defend that determination.And this is a conversation, merely making a simple statement without any reasoning is neither conversation nor makes your point.Your single argument is one of intent and this does not negate harm, even in a legal application.

quote:You can defend parts of your case (the parts, in fact, that I am not attacking and agree with) by saying that there’s a history of racial oppression against black people, but you can’t use that to defend a case which is expressly advanced as applying to all races whatever.

I am not. This thread is about Walliams costume and M&W got dragged in. Both cases of groups maligned by white people in Britain.

quote:

quote:Go ahead, though, whitesplain some more.

Go ahead. Any-fucking-colour-you-like-splain how that’s not racist.

Whitesplaining is racist. Though, to be fair, the same comments could have been made out of a pompous disregard for others in general and...Oh, you think accusing you of whitesplaining is racist.The term is similar to mansplaining. It is not directed at a general group, but a specific person, therefore the opposite of prejudice.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Erroneous Monk: (b) not participate in LARP at all?

Pretty much this, from what I can tell. LARP is OVERWHELMINGLY white.

quote:Originally posted by Jane R: The disconnect actually seems to be between Europeans and Americans. Americans are saying 'this is obviously racist' from the context of their culture and (some of) the Europeans are saying 'it's not so obvious from where we're standing.'

Some of the white British are saying it is not so obvious. And racism is often less obvious in the UK than in the US. Likely due to far fewer brown people in general, especially in the past, and slavery and oppression were done overseas rather than domestically.But blackface was done the same in the UK as it was in America.

quote:Should we stop performing these works because Puccini and Verdi were Europeans writing about different races?

No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.

quote:but I can also see why the people who are protesting ('it's just tradition! it's got nothing to do with the Black and White Minstrels!') are upset at another example of the inexorable march of American cultural imperialism.

Again, it isn't American. Racism in the UK isn't identical to that in the US, but this isn't one of differences. The UK is very much more white than the US. It is only a few areas that have much melanin. And this affords a additional level of blindness, IME.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:

But there are also cultural differences, there is a history of traditional protest by the poor going back over 500 years that predates the transatlantic slave trade. Because the penalities for protest were so harsh (often hanging) people blacked their faces with charcoal to avoid being identified. They used ritualised forms of protest to give themselves social legitimacy, and some traditional festivals see themselves as being in this tradition and legacy (I am not referring just Morris here, but also other forms of guising.)

The Rebecca riots in Wales are a famous example of this kind of protest, as are the Captain Swing riots that spread across large areas of the south east. (Not riotous in the modern sense, they were largely peaceful.). The spreading nature of these protests after the beginning of enclosures and the loss of common land, especially in relation to the loss of traditional rights to gather fuel, hunt & glean, is what lead to blacking up for protest being specifically outlawed.

In addition, the British mischief night and Halloween traditions largely relate to the undead and magical beings, absent other cues my default assumption on seeing someone with a blackened face would be that they were portraying a demon or imp rather than a racial caricature.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha: No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.

Danny La Rue wore makeup (to say the least) in order to portray the 'other group', ie, women. Wrong? Or are women not oppressed enough yet to qualify as 'those who should not be represented by anyone else who isn't part of their specific group'?

How do impersonators impersonate their target without reflecting the fact of that person's ethnicity? It would be unacceptable to caricature the person's ethnicity, of course. But wouldn't it be insulting to ignore the fact of it, too, and pretend they weren't black or Asian or Latin American etc?

Or should white people not offer comic political critiques using personations of public figures who aren't white?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:

I suppose the most obvious examples of white folk portraying Asians in the UK would be in pantomimes, in the production Aladdin or Ali Baba and the 40 thieves - I suspect it's challenged less because it's seen as unreal, fairytale, and also because of all the role reversal - the dame being played by a man the principle boy by a woman etc. So another transposition seems somehow less out of place - because noone is representing their own identity.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha: No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.

Danny La Rue wore makeup (to say the least) in order to portray the 'other group', ie, women. Wrong? Or are women not oppressed enough yet to qualify as 'those who should not be represented by anyone else who isn't part of their specific group'?

Cross-dressing is a bit more complicated, especially its history among the gay community. But cross-dressing hasn't been used to denigrate women in the same way blackface is used to denigrate brown people. Not giving it a right or wrong, though I've never cared for it.

quote:How do impersonators impersonate their target without reflecting the fact of that person's ethnicity? It would be unacceptable to caricature the person's ethnicity, of course. But wouldn't it be insulting to ignore the fact of it, too, and pretend they weren't black or Asian or Latin American etc?

You impersonate them not their ethnicity. No makeup required. Impressionists have done for decades. It isn't ignoring ethnicity, it is making the person the centre.

If I did a verbal impression of the Queen, and it was good, I trust you'd be intelligent enough to get it and not be confused by the colour and age difference.

quote:Originally posted by Doublethink.: But there are also cultural differences, there is a history of traditional protest by the poor going back over 500 years that predates the transatlantic slave trade.

Blackface as a caricature isn't strictly tied to slavery.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:

True, but the but the protest tradition has nothing to do with race and everything to do with disguise.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:

I think we can agree that race is an integral part of a person's identity. Therefore it seems to me that any attempt to portray a person accurately has to include some attempt to portray their race accurately.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Nicolemr: I think we can agree that race is an integral part of a person's identity. Therefore it seems to me that any attempt to portray a person accurately has to include some attempt to portray their race accurately.

I don't agree. As has been mentioned upthread, portraying a character of another race/culture has been done and quite successfully. Hamilton, the hottest theatre ticket in America and much anticipated in the UK, doesn't worry about portraying race.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Doublethink.: True, but the but the protest tradition has nothing to do with race and everything to do with disguise.

But the protest tradition doesn't encompass all of Morris or blackface dancers.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Anselmina: How do impersonators impersonate their target without reflecting the fact of that person's ethnicity? It would be unacceptable to caricature the person's ethnicity, of course. But wouldn't it be insulting to ignore the fact of it, too, and pretend they weren't black or Asian or Latin American etc?

Well said. Walliams is very clearly targeting Kim as Kim, and not Koreans generally. No possible suggestion of the latter.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:

quote:Originally posted by AmyBo: There's a disconnect here, and I think I see it? Most of us are looking at this through the lens of being white. That's white privilege.

Seems like some here are looking at this through the lens of being American. Taking a reasonable observation like "where I come from, it would be considered culturally insensitive to dress up as a member of a disadvantaged race" and turning into a universal prohibition. Without any regard for whether other people's cultures might look at things differently. Is that American privilege ?

quote:My experience is with rendezvous-era re-enactment.

I had to look that up. Seems to mean early 1800s "frontier" America, but in mountainous terrain rather than cattle plains ???

quote:I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of such appropriation.

Please do explain. With reference to your own culture, exactly what is it that you don't want us foreigners to do because it would "appropriate" your way of life ? Eat Macdonalds ? Watch Hollywood movies ? Drive pickup trucks ?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Gee D: No possible suggestion of the latter.

This is even more dismissive and arrogant a statement than Eliab's "reasonable".Clearly it is possible however unlikely you think it is.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:

Perhaps you're right if anything is possible. So we'll just say that it appears extremely unlikely that it was intended as a caricature of Koreans as a race, rather than that of the murderous ruler those in North Korea have.

quote:Originally posted by Gee D: Perhaps you're right if anything is possible. So we'll just say that it appears extremely unlikely that it was intended as a caricature of Koreans as a race, rather than that of the murderous ruler those in North Korea have.

Yours and Eliab's posts are projecting intent based on a couple of pics and the lack of mention any feedback from the party guests, so "extremely unlikely" is a stretch.And I am saying intent is not the only criterion.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:

Not for the first time, you're reading something into my post that just isn't there. I've said nothing about a lack of racist intent, just about an intent only to caricature Kim - and that's all we know. Of course, as it's only a short clip, it's possible that Walliams has all sorts of nasty intents we don't know about; it may even be possible that your reading of a racist intent is correct.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:Anselmina: How do impersonators impersonate their target without reflecting the fact of that person's ethnicity? It would be unacceptable to caricature the person's ethnicity, of course. But wouldn't it be insulting to ignore the fact of it, too, and pretend they weren't black or Asian or Latin American etc?

You impersonate them not their ethnicity. No makeup required. Impressionists have done for decades. It isn't ignoring ethnicity, it is making the person the centre.

If I did a verbal impression of the Queen, and it was good, I trust you'd be intelligent enough to get it and not be confused by the colour and age difference.

Well, clearly in the case of a verbal impression one would need to be extraordinarily stupid to be 'confused' by colour and age difference. Unless of course it's a poor impression!

But by the same token you can trust me to be intelligent enough to look at David Walliams and know he's lampooning a mad-as-a-box-of-frogs world leader, not an entire ethnic section of the world's population. I see nothing at all confusing about his physical personation of Kim Jong Un. I know what he's doing, just as I know what Tracy Ullman is doing with her Angela Merkel characterisation on her current BBC programme. Making a comic-political critique of a prominent world-figure whose completely fair game for ridicule and lampooning.

Ethnicity is a complex construct, though isn't it? It's not merely physical. It is accent, language, use of the vernacular, clothes, customs; the psychology which drives behaviour, response, attitude etc.

Should you give the best verbal impression (which is not the same thing as 'impersonation', of course) of Her Maj, say over the radio, to people who couldn't see you, you would still most assuredly be portraying her within her own ethnic grouping. There is no way you could replicate the tones of a royal-born, aristocratic white English woman without placing her very firmly smack bang in the middle of where and how she was born, educated, within what kind of culture and according to what kind of societal mores. So what is the taboo about the physical aspect of ethnicity, which apparently doesn't apply to all those other aspects?

If you are, in fact, already verbally pretending for comic effect to be an ethnically white, blue-blooded elderly English woman of a unique and powerful position, why would you baulk at looking like her, too, if called upon to impersonate her, say for a sketch on TV? If you've no reservation about satisfying your audience's ears, why not their eyes?

True. The Queen's skin colour, age, hairstyle, figure etc is not the whole of who she is. But neither is her voice. If you think that looking like her is out of the question, where's the justification for sounding like her?

Are we saying that we shouldn't consider people, in general, clever enough to know what it is they're being presented with? Some, of course, won't be. But in a liberal environment where people of power are subject to irreverent comic critique, that is arguably a risk we should be prepared to take.

quote:Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:So what do BME people do when they participate in LARP, playing the roles of white people? Do they use really pale foundation to "signal" that they represent a white person? Or do they do a "white voice"?

LARP (at least in the UK) is mostly white. The non-white LARPers I known (of Chinese and Middle-Eastern ethnicity) are a small minority, but play exactly the same sorts of characters, in exactly the same sorts of costume, as white LARPers. No one would expect them to stick to characters of 'their' racial type. In my corner of the hobby, no one would expect a dark-skinned LARPER to use pale make-up to portray, for example, a Norseman or Celt (and I've never seen anyone do that, but if they did, I don't think that anyone would mind).

At least in the systems I play, it is very, very rare to use face-paint to portray a human character of any race. The only examples I can recall is (a) to portray fictional human sub-types (such as Melniboneans or Githyanki) as truly white (as opposed to the pasty pink that is usually called white), and (b) to give a refined aristocratic character unusually pale skin. Different human races are portrayed all the time, but other means than face-paint are commonly used to signal that. Accents are used, frequently (though not universally).

There is (necessarily) a great deal of suspension of disbelief in LARP, so it's possible to get away with little to pass as whatever it is you want to play. But on the other hand, many people enjoy making an effort and appreciate that in others, so the standards of authenticity vary a lot.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Anselmina:But by the same token you can trust me to be intelligent enough to look at David Walliams and know he's lampooning a mad-as-a-box-of-frogs world leader, not an entire ethnic section of the world's population.

His intent isn't the whole of the problem. The problem is the yellow-face. And that he did not need to wear it to communicate who he was lampooning. Again, he didn't do Kim's other major physical attribute: Fat.

quote:Ethnicity is a complex construct, though isn't it? It's not merely physical. It is accent, language, use of the vernacular, clothes, customs; the psychology which drives behaviour, response, attitude etc.

Culture comes into play as well. It is inter-related, but not identical.

quote:Should you give the best verbal impression (which is not the same thing as 'impersonation', of course) of Her Maj, say over the radio, to people who couldn't see you, you would still most assuredly be portraying her within her own ethnic grouping.

No, her subculture, not her ethnicity.

quote:There is no way you could replicate the tones of a royal-born, aristocratic white English woman without placing her very firmly smack bang in the middle of where and how she was born, educated, within what kind of culture and according to what kind of societal mores. So what is the taboo about the physical aspect of ethnicity, which apparently doesn't apply to all those other aspects?

There is not the same the history of oppressing royalty, except by other royalty and nobility, as there is of brown peoples.

quote:True. The Queen's skin colour, age, hairstyle, figure etc is not the whole of who she is. But neither is her voice. If you think that looking like her is out of the question, where's the justification for sounding like her?

I did not say looking like her was out of the question, but that it is unnecessary.

quote:Are we saying that we shouldn't consider people, in general, clever enough to know what it is they're being presented with?

Actually, yes, because they haven't been so far. If they were, we would not be having this conversation.

quote: Some, of course, won't be. But in a liberal environment where people of power are subject to irreverent comic critique, that is arguably a risk we should be prepared to take.

The very same critique of Kim could have been done without the yellowface. Simply the haircut and the uniform would have been sufficient for anyone who knows who Kim Jong Un is, and not amount of makeup would inform those who did not.

As I said, we wore ordinary makeup for Turandot (making us clearly European people in fancy dress, just like the plot really) and makeup a couple of shades darker than usual for Nabucco (Europeans with a slight tan, dressed in what appeared to be potato sacks).

quote: The UK is very much more white than the US. It is only a few areas that have much melanin. And this affords a additional level of blindness, IME.

That's true enough. You're also correct that British racism tends to be more passive-aggressive than in-your-face, though it seems to be getting more like American racism post-Brexit.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:

lB--

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha: I don't agree. As has been mentioned upthread, portraying a character of another race/culture has been done and quite successfully. Hamilton, the hottest theatre ticket in America and much anticipated in the UK, doesn't worry about portraying race.

Actually, my understanding is that Lin-Manuel Miranda, who created the show and is (I think) Latino (possibly Puerto Rican) *purposely* set out to have a non-white cast.

In a clip I saw, there was one white actress--as Hamilton's wife, IIRC. The cast changes, periodically, so she may no longer be betrayed by a white actress.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:

I'm going to chuck in the hand-grenade that is Papa Lazarou in The League of Gentlemen. This show had a cult following in Australia, but I'm not sure how mainstream it was in the UK. Certainly the creators of the show are all lauded as geniuses, and have gone on to work on some iconic British shows such as Dr Who, Horrible Histories, Sherlock and a number of top-drawer BBC dramas. They are, I think, the establishment in British Comedy.

The Papa Lazarou character wears blackface, but I find it difficult to watch because of how he bullies and manipulates the women in this clip. I haven't watched any other clip with this character. It just goes too far with me, which is saying something given the content of some of the other storylines. As I say though, the writers/performers have been certified as geniuses.

Which is why I said “to portray other groups”. BTW, brown people also wear theatrical makeup, though not to avoid looking too pale.

quote: You're also correct that British racism tends to be more passive-aggressive than in-your-face, though it seems to be getting more like American racism post-Brexit.

It is quite nice of you to confirm this. I wasn’t quite sure I should believe my own experience. Or that of family, friends, coworkers...

Yes, fuck Brexit and Trump. Britain is becoming America and America is stepping backwards. What a wonderful time to be alive!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:

lilbuddha:

quote: It is quite nice of you to confirm this. I wasn’t quite sure I should believe my own experience. Or that of family, friends, coworkers...

Didn't mean to sound patronising - sorry. I've encountered blindness to prejudice myself - when complaining about people from the South being rude to me because of my (Northern) accent, I got 'what are you talking about? I've never had any problems in the South, only in the North.' From a Londoner. Gosh, yes, how very tolerant and broad-minded Southerners are; they aren't prejudiced against people with the *same accent as themselves*.

Race and class and parochialism all intersect over here. That's why we (still) have so many regional accents...
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:

quote:Originally posted by simontoad: I'm going to chuck in the hand-grenade that is Papa Lazarou in The League of Gentlemen. This show had a cult following in Australia, but I'm not sure how mainstream it was in the UK. Certainly the creators of the show are all lauded as geniuses, and have gone on to work on some iconic British shows such as Dr Who, Horrible Histories, Sherlock and a number of top-drawer BBC dramas. They are, I think, the establishment in British Comedy.

The Papa Lazarou character wears blackface, but I find it difficult to watch because of how he bullies and manipulates the women in this clip. I haven't watched any other clip with this character. It just goes too far with me, which is saying something given the content of some of the other storylines. As I say though, the writers/performers have been certified as geniuses.

It was a big hit in the UK, the man playing the woman in the headscarf is the guy who wrote Sherlock and plays mycroft in it- Mark Gatiss.

It has not aged well. Yes, that is self-evidently blackface - and I am ashamed to admit that until you posted that I hadn't noticed.

When I watched it I saw the character as an evil clown, one of a series of grotesques in horror-comedy show in which no one was who they represented. (In so far as that's true of the plot - he steals away people to a circus of which he acts as ringmaster and then transforms them - it also reflects a lot of the anti-Roma prejudices directed at travellers.) Now that I come to think of it the pig-faced shopkeepers are self-evidently a crystallisation of every cliche about inbred rural villages.

I know it is a series whose portrayals have made me increasingly uncomfortable over time, not just re race but also the portrayal of woman, other nationalities and transgender folk. I actually own copies of those series, but haven't watched them in over a decade - think I'll bin them.

Trivia fact, the League of Gentleman is set in Royston Vasey - because that is the real name of Roy Chubby Brown, who the creators claim to have disliked - though I note wiki says he was cast in the series at one point.

Ooops! Several posts up, I said that a white actress had "betrayed" Mrs. Hamilton in "Hamilton". I meant "portrayed".
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:Originally posted by Nicolemr: I think we can agree that race is an integral part of a person's identity. Therefore it seems to me that any attempt to portray a person accurately has to include some attempt to portray their race accurately.

...portraying a character of another race/culture has been done and quite successfully. Hamilton, the hottest theatre ticket in America and much anticipated in the UK, doesn't worry about portraying race.

That's an artistic decision taken by a professional theatre company. The amateurs at portraying other people that we're talking about in this thread - guests at fancy dress parties, role-players - face a similar decision - how much will looking more like the person I'm portraying add to the experience ? But (often) make that decision as individuals, without a director/producer to co-ordinate the look across the cast.

Seems like you're making a utilitarian argument that the gains (from makeup that suggests the race of the character one is playing) are smaller than the losses, and therefore it shouldn't be done. The loss being the risk that someone of the ethnicity portrayed will be offended thereby. Is that it ?

The alternative might be that you're saying that trying to look like someone else is an inherently disrespectful action. And that while you're quite happy for anyone to disrespect Glorious Leader, you think it's wrong to disrespect Koreans in general, regardless of how beneficial it may be in other ways.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Russ:Seems like you're making a utilitarian argument that the gains (from makeup that suggests the race of the character one is playing) are smaller than the losses, and therefore it shouldn't be done. The loss being the risk that someone of the ethnicity portrayed will be offended thereby. Is that it ?

Surprisingly, fairly close. Except that I'd argue out of respect rather than utilitarianism.

quote:The alternative might be that you're saying that trying to look like someone else is an inherently disrespectful action.

I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful. As I have stated more than one on this thread.

quote: And that while you're quite happy for anyone to disrespect Glorious Leader,

Disrespecting him for what has has done is fine, disrespecting him for what he is (by birth/culture) not so much.

quote: you think it's wrong to disrespect Koreans in general, regardless of how beneficial it may be in other ways.

So, here we have a thread where white people want to look brown for fun when real brown people’s attributes are erased. Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha: I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful. As I have stated more than one on this thread.

Yes. You keep stating it. You haven't as yet explained 'why' using makeup to impersonate another group - maligned or otherwise - is disrespectful. I can easily see why it is sometimes disrespectful; minstrel shows, racism etc. Obvious. But you haven't said why it is always disrespectful. In fact, you yourself seemed to see the ambivalence of male impersonation of female (a maligned group?) involving much make-up. And you seemed quite able to rationalize a view which might excuse that, despite your own much-stated principle against it.

I'm not saying you don't have some valid points. Just you're not being consistent or particularly clear in what the problem is.

The OP was about Walliams and the ludicrous but dangerous leader of North Korea. He made himself up to look like him, presumably to point fun at him. Seems entirely reasonable. Why shouldn't someone lampooning a political target, look like the political target?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Anselmina: .You keep stating it. You haven't as yet explained 'why' using makeup to impersonate another group - maligned or otherwise - is disrespectful. I can easily see why it is sometimes disrespectful; minstrel shows, racism etc. Obvious.

There is no clean disconnect between those portrayals and the supposed “benign” ones. Because the inequities and prejudices which are root of the practice are still very real and significant.

quote: In fact, you yourself seemed to see the ambivalence of male impersonation of female (a maligned group?) involving much make-up.

Wearing cosmetics or a dress isn’t what makes one female. The trans community isn’t doing it for laughs or to mock women. And gender-bending in the LGBT+ community isn’t the same thing as Blackface.

quote:And you seemed quite able to rationalize a view which might excuse that, despite your own much-stated principle against it.

”much-stated principle”? I said one time that I didn’t care for it. And that is a personal thing, not a principle thing.
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha: I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful. As I have stated more than one on this thread.

Yes. You keep stating it. You haven't as yet explained 'why' using makeup to impersonate another group - maligned or otherwise - is disrespectful. I can easily see why it is sometimes disrespectful; minstrel shows, racism etc. Obvious. But you haven't said why it is always disrespectful. In fact, you yourself seemed to see the ambivalence of male impersonation of female (a maligned group?) involving much make-up. And you seemed quite able to rationalize a view which might excuse that, despite your own much-stated principle against it.

I'm not saying you don't have some valid points. Just you're not being consistent or particularly clear in what the problem is.

The OP was about Walliams and the ludicrous but dangerous leader of North Korea. He made himself up to look like him, presumably to point fun at him. Seems entirely reasonable. Why shouldn't someone lampooning a political target, look like the political target?

Imagine every time you see yourself portrayed in the media it's negative. Imagine when you show up to school all the teachers are harsher to you than your classmates. Imagine that the behavior you were taught was appropriate and even respectful at home was considered rude at school. Imagine that when you did screw up some do-gooder decided you couldn't do any better and didn't help you improve. Imagine that all your peers had families with intergenerational wealth and your family just got into their first house because of redlining. Imagine you put your hair into pretty braids like your aunties and grandma and you were called names, but when your classmates who don't have that tradition did the same they were called edgy. Imagine people decided not to see your skin color, the reason you're treated so differently, and instead called you Urban with the same disdain they used to drop the N word.

Now put one of those folks in black face, that was used to denigrate your ancestors at a time when your uncles and grandfathers were swinging from trees. Or even now, when your mom's boyfriend who is raising you, is murdered in front of you by a cop.

quote:Originally posted by Russ:The loss being the risk that someone of the ethnicity portrayed will be offended thereby. Is that it ?

Surprisingly, fairly close. Except that I'd argue out of respect rather than utilitarianism.

I was asking if you think it's only a problem if there's someone at this private party that's likely to take offence, or whether it's an inherently disrespectful action. Is it about someone who subjectively feels offended (whether it not it is reasonable for them to so feel) ? Or is imitation an inherently and objectively disrespectful action ?

quote:I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful.

That's an answer.

If it depends on who is being imitated then it's not an inherently disrespectful act.

I think you're saying that the issue isn't really about makeup at all.

It's about awareness of the backstory.

You have in your mind a story. A history, a true story about makeup - a small thing in itself - being part of a system of oppression - a big thing.

And if you're saying that the act of seeking to look more like a darker-skinned person will always remind you of this historic context, then clearly we have to accept that. You feel what you feel.

But other people in other cultures have other stories. The meaning of the act to them may be totally different from what it means to you.

That doesn't make them any more blind or insensitive than you are. You can't reasonably insist that the meaning to them must be the same as the meaning to you. Or that your meaning is privileged over their meaning.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Russ: I was asking if you think it's only a problem if there's someone at this private party that's likely to take offence, or whether it's an inherently disrespectful action.

Why would a decent person want to do something disrespectful, simply because the persons disprefected mightn’t see it? Seems disrespectful all the same.

quote:I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful.

That's an answer.

quote:I think you're saying that the issue isn't really about makeup at all.

It's about awareness of the backstory.

Not sure what this means. If someone were ignorant enough to not know the backstory, a decent person would apologize for inadvertently offending.

quote:You have in your mind a story. A history, a true story about makeup - a small thing in itself - being part of a system of oppression - a big thing.

just history, no story needed. Not a small thing, BTW. Less than enslavement, but still significant. And small things add up, so it is difficult to quantify things as less significant.

quote:But other people in other cultures have other stories. The meaning of the act to them may be totally different from what it means to you.

This discussion isn’t about cultures which don’t have a history of Blackface. It is primarily about the UK, which does. In a culture which has no history of oppressing people might indeed do makeup of other groups without inherent disrespect. . But oppression is the history of Europe and its colonies, so...
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:But other people in other cultures have other stories. The meaning of the act to them may be totally different from what it means to you.

This discussion isn’t about cultures which don’t have a history of Blackface. It is primarily about the UK, which does. In a culture which has no history of oppressing people might indeed do makeup of other groups without inherent disrespect. . But oppression is the history of Europe and its colonies, so...

It is the combined British histories of oppression and of mocking the *appearance* of ethnic minorities that means it particularly grates.

I remember when I was a kid there was a "joke" doing the rounds in the playground:

Q: What three things can't a black man get?A: A black eye, a thick lip and a job

Hilarious.

Not.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:But equally obviously, the sketch isn’t making any negative comment about anyone based on race.

Your posts seem to indicate that you either do not have the ability to understand or the willingness to; so going further on this example may be pointless.

What I really don't understand is how that's a useful response to my point.

I asserted (I think with good reason) that it is obvious that the M&W sketch is not making a negative racial comment. It's not saying Congolese and/or black people are [something bad].

It's possible that you think I'm wrong - in which case, why not just say what negative comment you think is being made?

It's possible that you agree that I'm right on this point (but still disagree with me for other reasons) - in which case why not confirm that we do agree?

I can't see how it's constructive to pick out a statement of mine which (as far as I can tell) is a perfectly reasonable one, and follow it with a vague "you aren't able or willing to understand". Do you think that I'm right that the M&W sketch isn't a negative racial comment or not?

quote:

quote: I just think “respectful” is completely unworkable as a standard of behaviour in this area.

Sorry, you'll have to explain this one a bit better. Why shouldn't respect be part of it?

Because:

a) views about what constitutes 'respect' and how it is shown, vary enormously between and within cultures. We'll never agree about what is respectful;

b) I don't think it's part of a comedian's job to be respectful;

c) What I'm principally defending here is the liberal principle of harmless fun. My justification for (non-malicious) jokes, dressing up, LARP, re-enactment, Halloween or whatever is that people enjoy these things, and should be free to enjoy them as harmless fun, not a serious, respectful social commentary.

I'm sure you could, for example, do an ECW re-enactment as a moving act of tribute to the sacrifices of men and women who did the best they could according to their views of God, rights and royalty, and in doing so shaped Britain. But you could also do it because you like to dress up and shoot muskets. And both are OK.

Exactly the same applies to any other sort of dressing up, from an astronaut to a North Korean dictator. It might be serious and respectful. It might also just be for fun. Both are OK.

quote:

quote:In my usual form of discourse (UK legal practice) “reasonable” is the word commonly used to make that distinction.

Yes, and then an explanation of why said thing is reasonable could be required to defend that determination.And this is a conversation, merely making a simple statement without any reasoning is neither conversation nor makes your point.Your single argument is one of intent and this does not negate harm, even in a legal application.

That's not my argument. It is, at most, the starting point of my argument.

I think that intentional racism is wrong, yes (and also care more than you seem to about whether offence that has been caused was intended), but I also I fully accept that something can be harmful without intent. I've said several times that it might well be wrong to do something that a reasonable observer could misconstrue as a racist attack. For, as far as I can see, the same reasons that you give.

However what Walliams, Mitchell and Webb are doing isn't racist, and isn't harmful, and can't reasonably be misconstrued as being meant that way. They (almost certainly) do not intend any racial insult, and looking at what they are doing it is unfair to assume that they intended it, because their actions are fully explained and better explained without inferring a racist motive. With the single exception of Kim Jong Un, you can't look at what they are doing and fairly conclude that you or your race are being mocked or ridiculed.

quote:Whitesplaining is racist. Though, to be fair, the same comments could have been made out of a pompous disregard for others in general and...Oh, you think accusing you of whitesplaining is racist.The term is similar to mansplaining. It is not directed at a general group, but a specific person, therefore the opposite of prejudice.

Yes, what you said was racist.

I don't know actually know what ethnicity you are, except that it's not the same as mine. I don't need to know. I am trying to engage with your arguments on their merits. If I appear dismissive of your arguments, it's because I (rightly or wrongly) see no merit in those arguments - not that I see no point in engaging with you. And I would be utterly ashamed if I gave the impression that the reason that I was dismissing something you said had anything whatsoever to do with your race.

I'm surprised that you do not feel the same way.

I'm even more surprised that on being called on it, rather than withdraw, you doubled down and called me racist.

Your "white-splaining" comment was clearly intended to be dismissive (which is fine), and explicitly links your dismissiveness to my race (which isn't). It is self-evidently a racial insult.

Alright, it's an extremely feeble racial insult, and reflects far more badly on you than it does on me, but my pleasure at being handed a rhetorical victory gift-wrapped and on a silver platter doesn't change the fact that your comment was undoubtedly meant to be insulting, and was undoubtedly meant to be racial. It's not any the less racial because you only directed it at one person.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:

quote:Originally posted by Eliab:I asserted (I think with good reason) that it is obvious that the M&W sketch is not making a negative racial comment.

M&W are doing black face. Blackface cannot reasonably be separated from the negative because it still happens and the inequities are still massively present.The sketch uses the history of blackface as a throw away to get a laugh. I do not believe this was their intention, but this is the reality.I'm not advocating this lapse as a reason to revile the pair, but it doesn't change that they didn't get it right.

quote:a) views about what constitutes 'respect' and how it is shown, vary enormously between and within cultures. We'll never agree about what is respectful;

This is a cop out. "There will never be perfect agreement with everyone so fuck trying"?

quote:b) I don't think it's part of a comedian's job to be respectful;

No, it isn't. But there are lines that, when crossed, are rightfully challenged. You are correct in that there will never be perfect agreement as to where those lines are, you are incorrect in assuming that you get to choose where the line should be in disregard to those the line stepping is aimed at.And...oh fuck it the rest of your post is repetitive and useless at this point.

Except this bit.

quote:

It's not any the less racial because you only directed it at one person.

Yes, yes it is. The very definition of racism needs conferring an attribute on a group of people. Whilst you need to be white to whitesplain, it isn't an attribute of being white that causes it. It, like mansplaining, is referencing the blindness caused by a power differential and is very much an accusation directed at what an individual is actually doing, not on a conferred trait.Put another way, your whiteness allows you to be deaf to what your are saying, it does not cause your deafness.

quote:Originally posted by lilBuddha:Why would a decent person want to do something disrespectful, simply because the persons disprefected mightn’t see it? Seems disrespectful all the same.

That clarifies even further - you're saying it's not about any offence that other people might feel. It's about an act that is objectively disrespectful even if everybody present is fine with it.

quote: If someone were ignorant enough to not know the backstory, a decent person would apologize for inadvertently offending.

A decent person would indeed apologise if they realised that they'd inadvertently offended someone present.

But you've just said that's not what you're objecting to. You're objecting because it's an act that inherently disrespects those who suffered racial mockery in the past. Regardless of what those present feel about it.

quote:small things add up, so it is difficult to quantify things as less significant.

You don't seem to find any difficulty with quantifying people's artistic freedom to use or not use makeup as something insignificant.

It sounds like you're saying that white-on-black racial prejudice is such an enormous issue for you that you don't consider anything related to that issue as insignificant. Which is understandable.

What grates is when you imply that everybody else ought to feel that way too.

quote:This discussion isn’t about cultures which don’t have a history of Blackface. It is primarily about the UK, which does. [/QB]

And Ireland ? If the Sligo amateur dramatic society are putting on The Mikado, are they allowed makeup so as to look more oriental ?

Now I can quite see that if there were a significant oriental minority in Sligo, and if there were a history of that minority being mocked on stage, then it might be prudent to consult a sample of people to ensure no misunderstandings occur. And if the situation were really fraught, to do Yeoman of the Guard instead. But that's about the feelings of those around you.